Multi-institutional questionnaire-based survey on online adaptive radiotherapy performed using commercial systems in Japan in 2023.

Clinical practice Commissioning Daily replanning Online adaptive radiotherapy Questionnaire survey

Journal

Radiological physics and technology
ISSN: 1865-0341
Titre abrégé: Radiol Phys Technol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101467995

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 27 05 2024
accepted: 13 07 2024
revised: 12 07 2024
medline: 19 7 2024
pubmed: 19 7 2024
entrez: 19 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

In this study, we aimed to conduct a survey on the current clinical practice of, staffing for, commissioning of, and staff training for online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) in the institutions that installed commercial oART systems in Japan, and to share the information with institutions that will implement oART systems in future. A web-based questionnaire, containing 107 questions, was distributed to nine institutions in Japan. Data were collected from November to December 2023. Three institutions each with the MRIdian (ViewRay, Oakwood Village, OH, USA), Unity (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden), and Ethos (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) systems completed the questionnaire. One institution (MRIdian) had not performed oART by the response deadline. Each institution had installed only one oART system. Hypofractionation, and moderate hypofractionation or conventional fractionation were employed in the MRIdian/Unity and Ethos systems, respectively. The elapsed time for the oART process was faster with the Ethos than with the other systems. All institutions added additional staff for oART. Commissioning periods differed among the oART systems owing to provision of beam data from the vendors. Chambers used during commissioning measurements differed among the institutions. Institutional training was provided by all nine institutions. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first survey about oART performed using commercial systems in Japan. We believe that this study will provide useful information to institutions that installed, are installing, or are planning to install oART systems.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1007/s12194-024-00828-4 PMID: 39028438
pubmed: 39028438
doi: 10.1007/s12194-024-00828-4
pii: 10.1007/s12194-024-00828-4
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 22K15844
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 22K15860
Organisme : Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
ID : 21EA1010
Organisme : Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
ID : 23EA1012

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics.

Références

Yan D, Vicini F, Wong J, et al. Adaptive radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol. 1997;42:123–32. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/42/1/008 .
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/42/1/008 pubmed: 9015813
Bertholet J, Anastasi G, Noble D, et al. Patterns of practice for adaptive and real-time radiation therapy (POP-ART RT) part II: Offline and online plan adaption for interfractional changes. Radiother Oncol. 2020;153:88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.06.017 .
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.06.017 pubmed: 32579998 pmcid: 7758781
Kim M, Schiff JP, Price A, et al. The first reported case of a patient with pancreatic cancer treated with cone beam computed tomography-guided stereotactic adaptive radiotherapy (CT-STAR). Radiat Oncol. 2022;17:157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02125-z .
doi: 10.1186/s13014-022-02125-z pubmed: 36100866 pmcid: 9472353
Christiansen RL, Dysager L, Hansen CR, et al. Online adaptive radiotherapy potentially reduces toxicity for high-risk prostate cancer treatment. Radiother Oncol. 2022;167:165–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.013 pubmed: 34923034
McNair HA, Wiseman T, Joyce E, et al. International survey; current practice in on-line adaptive radiotherapy (ART) delivered using Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) guidance. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2020;16:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2020.08.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2020.08.002 pubmed: 32995576 pmcid: 7501460
Okamoto H, Igaki H, Chiba T, et al. Practical guidelines of online MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy. J Radiat Res. 2022;63:730–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrac048 .
doi: 10.1093/jrr/rrac048 pubmed: 35946325 pmcid: 9494538
Cai B, Li H, Yang D, et al. Performance of a multi leaf collimator system for MR-guided radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2017;44:6504–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12571 .
doi: 10.1002/mp.12571 pubmed: 28887825
Iijima K, Okamoto H, Nishioka S, et al. Performance of a newly designed end-to-end phantom compatible with magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy systems. Med Phys. 2021;48:7541–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15153 .
doi: 10.1002/mp.15153 pubmed: 34510486
Nakayama H, Okamoto H, Nakamura S, et al. Film measurement and analytical approach for assessing treatment accuracy and latency in a magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24: e13915. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13915 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13915 pubmed: 36934441 pmcid: 10161048
Price AT, Knutson NC, Kim T, et al. Commissioning a secondary dose calculation software for a 0.35 T MR-linac. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23: e13452. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13452 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13452 pubmed: 35166011 pmcid: 8906210
Snyder KC, Mao W, Kim JP, et al. Commissioning, clinical implementation, and initial experience with a new brain tumor treatment package on a low-field MR-linac. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24: e13919. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13919 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13919 pubmed: 37278646 pmcid: 10243323
Malkov VN, Rogers DWO. Monte Carlo study of ionization chamber magnetic field correction factors as a function of angle and beam quality. Med Phys. 2018;45:908–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12716 .
doi: 10.1002/mp.12716 pubmed: 29218730
O’Brien DJ, Roberts DA, Ibbott GS, et al. Reference dosimetry in magnetic fields: formalism and ionization chamber correction factors. Med Phys. 2016;43:4915–27. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4959785 .
doi: 10.1118/1.4959785 pubmed: 27487908
Roberts DA, Sandin C, Vesanen PT, et al. Machine QA for the Elekta unity system: a report from the Elekta MR-linac consortium. Med Phys. 2021;48:e67-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14764 .
doi: 10.1002/mp.14764 pubmed: 33577091
Snyder JE, St-Aubin J, Yaddanapudi S, et al. Commissioning of a 1.5T Elekta Unity MR-linac: A single institution experience. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21:160–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12902 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12902 pubmed: 32432405 pmcid: 7386194
Powers M, Baines J, Crane R, et al. Commissioning measurements on an Elekta unity MR-Linac. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2022;45:457–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-022-01113-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s13246-022-01113-7 pubmed: 35235188 pmcid: 9239956
Woodings SJ, van Asselen B, van Soest TL, et al. Technical note: consistency of PTW30013 and FC65-G ion chamber magnetic field correction factors. Med Phys. 2019;46:3739–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13623 .
doi: 10.1002/mp.13623 pubmed: 31131902
Netherton T, Li Y, Gao S, et al. Experience in commissioning the halcyon linac. Med Phys. 2019;46:4304–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13723 .
doi: 10.1002/mp.13723 pubmed: 31310678
Sibolt P, Booth J, Aland T et al. Evaluation of calculation-based patient specific QA for online adaptive radiotherapy. In: White Papers. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. https://medicalaffairs.varian.com/Clinical-Notes-Technical-Notes-and-White-Papers . Accessed 18 April 2024.
Hu Y, Byrne M, Archibald-Heeren B, et al. Validation of the preconfigured Varian Ethos Acuros XB beam model for treatment planning dose calculations: a dosimetric study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21:27–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13056 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13056 pubmed: 33068070 pmcid: 7769396
Byrne M, Archibald-Heeren B, Hu Y, et al. Varian ethos online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer: early results of contouring accuracy, treatment plan quality, and treatment time. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23: e13479. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13479 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13479 pubmed: 34846098
De Roover R, Crijns W, Poels K, et al. Validation and IMRT/VMAT delivery quality of a preconfigured fast-rotating O-ring linac system. Med Phys. 2019;46:328–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13282 .
doi: 10.1002/mp.13282 pubmed: 30417523
Kisling K, Keiper TD, Branco D, et al. Clinical commissioning of an adaptive radiotherapy platform: results and recommendations. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23: e13801. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13801 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13801 pubmed: 36316805 pmcid: 9797177
Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys. 2009;36:4197–212. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3190392 .
doi: 10.1118/1.3190392 pubmed: 19810494
Tsuneda M, Abe K, Fujita Y, et al. Elekta Unity MR-linac commissioning: mechanical and dosimetry tests. J Radiat Res. 2023;64:73–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrac072 .
doi: 10.1093/jrr/rrac072
Tijssen RHN, Philippens MEP, Paulson ES, et al. MRI commissioning of 1.5T MR-linac systems - a multi-institutional study. Radiother Oncol. 2019;132:114–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2018.12.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.12.011 pubmed: 30825959
Jackson S, Glitzner M, Tijssen RHN, et al. MRI B
doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab231a pubmed: 31108467
Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM task group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36:5359–73. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104 .
doi: 10.1118/1.3238104 pubmed: 19994544
Geurts MW, Jacqmin DJ, Jones LE, et al. AAPM medical physics practice guideline 5.b: commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations—megavoltage photon and electron beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23: e13641. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13641 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13641 pubmed: 35950259 pmcid: 9512346
Zhao X, Stanley DN, Cardenas CE, et al. Do we need patient-specific QA for adaptively generated plans? Retrospective evaluation of delivered online adaptive treatment plans on varian Ethos. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24: e13876. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13876 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13876 pubmed: 36560887
Sibolt P, Andersson LM, Camels L, et al. Clinical implementation of artificial intelligence-driven cone-beam computed tomography-guided online adaptive radiotherapy in the pelvic region. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021;17:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2020.12.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2020.12.004 pubmed: 33898770
Nishioka S, Okamoto H, Chiba T, et al. Identifying risk characteristics using failure mode and effect analysis for risk management in online magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2022;23:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2022.06.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.06.002 pubmed: 35712526 pmcid: 9194450
Liang J, Scripes PG, Tyagi N, et al. Risk analysis of the Unity 1.5 T MR-Linac adapt-to-position workflow. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24: e13850. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13850 .
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13850 pubmed: 36411990
Wegner S, Exner F, Weick S, et al. Prospective risk analysis of the online-adaptive artificial intelligence-driven workflow using the Ethos treatment system. Z Med Phys. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2022.11.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2022.11.004
Wegner S, Käthner P, Weick S, et al. Re-evaluation of the prospective risk analysis for artificial-intelligence driven cone beam computed tomography-based online adaptive radiotherapy after one year of clinical experience. Z Med Phys. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2024.05.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2024.05.001
Jelen U, Dong B, Begg J, et al. Dosimetric optimization and commissioning of a high field inline MRI-linac. Front Oncol. 2020;10:136. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00136 .
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00136 pubmed: 32117776 pmcid: 7033562
Green OL, Henke LE, Hugo GD. Practical clinical workflows for online and offline adaptive radiation therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019;29:219–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2019.02.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2019.02.004 pubmed: 31027639 pmcid: 6487881

Auteurs

Hiraku Iramina (H)

Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group (ART-WG), QA/QC Committee, Japan Society of Medical Physics, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-Cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto-Shi, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.

Masato Tsuneda (M)

Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group (ART-WG), QA/QC Committee, Japan Society of Medical Physics, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Radiation Oncology, MR Linac ART Division, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-Ku, Chiba-Shi, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.

Hiroyuki Okamoto (H)

Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group (ART-WG), QA/QC Committee, Japan Society of Medical Physics, Tokyo, Japan.
Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-Ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.

Noriyuki Kadoya (N)

Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group (ART-WG), QA/QC Committee, Japan Society of Medical Physics, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-Machi, Aoba-Ku, Sendai-Shi, Miyagi, 980-8574, Japan.

Nobutaka Mukumoto (N)

Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group (ART-WG), QA/QC Committee, Japan Society of Medical Physics, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, 1-4-3 Asahi-Machi, Abeno-Ku, Osaka-Shi, Osaka, 545-8585, Japan.

Masahiko Toyota (M)

Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group (ART-WG), QA/QC Committee, Japan Society of Medical Physics, Tokyo, Japan.
Division of Radiology, Department of Clinical Technology, Kagoshima University Hospital, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima-Shi, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan.

Junichi Fukunaga (J)

Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group (ART-WG), QA/QC Committee, Japan Society of Medical Physics, Tokyo, Japan.
Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.

Yukio Fujita (Y)

Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group (ART-WG), QA/QC Committee, Japan Society of Medical Physics, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Radiation Oncology, MR Linac ART Division, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-Ku, Chiba-Shi, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.
Department of Radiological Sciences, Komazawa University, 1-23-1 Komazawa, Setagaya-Ku, Tokyo, 154-8525, Japan.

Naoki Tohyama (N)

Department of Radiological Sciences, Komazawa University, 1-23-1 Komazawa, Setagaya-Ku, Tokyo, 154-8525, Japan.

Hiroshi Onishi (H)

Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo-Shi, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan.

Mitsuhiro Nakamura (M)

Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group (ART-WG), QA/QC Committee, Japan Society of Medical Physics, Tokyo, Japan. m_nkmr@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.
Department of Advanced Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 53 Kawahara-Cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto-Shi, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. m_nkmr@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.

Classifications MeSH